[rdenney]

That one is cheap enough, perhaps, but it’s an older model. We called these “zebras”, and they are single-coated. The version after these had black barrels but still the angled rear section, and might be multicoated. The latest version had a stepped barrel instead of the angled section, multicoating, and a simpler an more reliable stop-down mechanism. End of production models were the same but with short serial numbers. I’ll find a pic of one (I have no access to the gallery from within Tapatalk) later on and post it.

Adaptors are available from DVDTechnik in the Ukraine. These are the same as Hartblei adapters you sometimes see.

http://www.dvdtechnik.com/?p=res&pn=1&p_t=view&id=60&mid=82&cur=usd

Rick “who has a zebra and the latest version, and think the multicoating is worth the search” Denney

[TDvN57]

I started experimenting with Black Pro-Mist filters. It does add a "magic" touch to the pictures and adds a delicate softness. I quite like the look and feel of the results. It doesn't add to the bokeh of the lens of course but it adds to the overall quality of the picture. On the 6x7 105mm, which is already a nice portrait lens it adds even more and in some cases perhaps a bit too much. There are a couple of these magic touch filter types that the video guys use.

In some ways I think the video and film industry is way ahead of the photography group especially when it comes to the finer enhancements, filters, lenses and tripods. Perhaps it is rooted in their inability to get the raw files in the beginning, so if something was not captured in camera, post processing was limited, in some cases it would have been limited to cutting and splicing only.

For example: I've seen a couple of landscape photographers now moving away from ball heads for tripods, switching to traditional video heads, etc.

Hope I'm not stirring the hornet's nest too much today :-)

---------- Post added 2020-12-09 at 12:18 PM ----------

That one is cheap enough, perhaps, but it’s an older model. We called these “zebras”, and they are single-coated. The version after these had black barrels but still the angled rear section, and might be multicoated. The latest version had a stepped barrel instead of the angled section, multicoating, and a simpler an more reliable stop-down mechanism. End of production models were the same but with short serial numbers. I’ll find a pic of one (I have no access to the gallery from within Tapatalk) later on and post it.

Adaptors are available from DVDTechnik in the Ukraine. These are the same as Hartblei adapters you sometimes see.

Pentacon Lens to Pentax-645 Body Adapter

Rick “who has a zebra and the latest version, and think the multicoating is worth the search” Denney

Thanks for the info Rick. I'll keep looking, although at the moment I'm not too serious about buying. I first need to see what surprises the virus is going to throw my way, and what the stock market will do in the next couple of months. Until then the purse is closed tightly :-)

[mikeSF]

I love my Schneider-Kreuznach Cinelux-Ultra 125/2.0

The only problems are (1) manual focus only, with a very long throw, and (2) f/2.0 is all you get.





And a full body shot. I couldn't find a volunteer for a live nude, so this will have to do



Not much wrong with the FA645 80~160/4.5 either....



And if your model has perfect skin, or they are happy to be portrayed warts and all, the FA645 120/4.0 macro can fit the bill.

Marvelous, Sandy!!!

---------- Post added 12-09-20 at 05:32 PM ----------

I have had A75, DFA90, 67 105, A120, 80-160 in that range, but so far my favorite for portraits is the FA 150/2.8. It is mushy wide open, by at f/4 it's a winner.

[barondla]

I want to ask the forum for advice and learn from your experience.

What would you recommend as the ultimate portrait lens 645 or 6x7 formats for use on the 645z. Could also be non Pentax brand to be used with adapter.

Will appreciate your advice.

I don't shoot portraits, but the Pentax 67 165 F2.8 has nice bokeh. It should do well and can be had for very little money.

Thanks,
barondla

[MJKoski]

I just picked up a used, almost mint, copy of 645 FA150/2.8 lens to adapt it to GFX50R. And it seems to work very good. It is already usable wide open for most of the image area and stopped down to f/4 its performance ~equals typical native GF-lens @ f/4. AF/MF clutch is a bit weird to get used to but my copy has no slop in the mechanism.

[MJKoski]

Should the FA150/2.8 work against bright light (with no filters)? I'm using it adapted to a GFX body and the lens is practically useless if powerful point light sources are in the line of sight at the distance.

[RICHARD L.]

Just to be a "contrarian" (I don't really shoot portraits), but the 67 M 90-180 mm f/5.6 zoom would be a tremendous lens to use for this kind of photography with the 645Z. Using it for quite a few images, I found f/8 to be the optimum opening, so you could easily isolate the near subject from the background. It focuses to 4 feet (same as the 645 FA 150 mm f/2.8) and could be made to focus closer with the #1 645 Auto Extension tube while remaining capable of automatic exposure in Av mode.

Regards

---

Last edited by RICHARD L.; 01-02-2021 at 10:58 AM.

[barondla]

Should the FA150/2.8 work against bright light (with no filters)? I'm using it adapted to a GFX body and the lens is practically useless if powerful point light sources are in the line of sight at the distance.

Had the same problem using Pentax 67 lenses on the 645Z. It was reflections in the 3rd party adapter. The adapter needs to be blackened by painting or flocking with stick on black felt. The 67 165 F2.8 and 75 F4.5 perform great now. The original Pentax made adapters are already blackened well.

Thanks,
barondla

[MJKoski]

Yea, I do have flocking tape available. That is the next thing to try. Just wondering if it is the lens or not. I have had serious adapter flares with Canon TS-E lenses on Sony but they looked quite a bit different.

[desertscape]

The 90mm f/2.8 that was made for the 67 (the Pentax, not the Takumar) is much overlooked due to the fame of the 105. But it is the same optical design type (Double Gauss) and much cheaper. It's a bit short for portraits on the 67 but fine on the Z.

[RICHARD L.]

The 90mm f/2.8 that was made for the 67 (the Pentax, not the Takumar) is much overlooked due to the fame of the 105. But it is the same optical design type (Double Gauss) and much cheaper. It's a bit short for portraits on the 67 but fine on the Z.

Indeed, I used my 67 M 90 mm f/2.8 with flash on my 645N for portraiture with great success in the film era.

Regards